According to Buddhism mercy killing cannot be justified. Mercy and killing can never go together. Some people kill their pets on the grounds that they do not like to see the pets suffer. However, if mercy killing is the correct method to be practised on pets and other animals, then why are people so reluctant to do the same to their beloved ones? When some people see their dogs or cats suffer from some skin disease, they arrange to kill those poor animals. They call this action, mercy killing. Actually it is not that they have mercy towards those animals, but they kill them for their own precaution and to get rid of an awful sight. And even if they do have real mercy towards a suffering animal, they still have no right to take away its life. No matter how sincere one may be, mercy killing, is not the correct approach. The consequences of this killing, however, are different from killing with hatred towards the animal. Buddhists have no grounds to say that any kind of killing is justified. Some people try to justify mercy killing with the misconception that if the motive or reason is good, then the act itself is good. They then claim that by killing their pet, they have the intention to relieve the unhappy animal from its suffering and so the action is good. No doubt their original intention or motive is good. But the evil act of killing which occurs through a later thought, will certainly bring about unwholesome results.

Keeping away from mercy killing can become a nuisance to many. Nevertheless, the Buddhist religion cannot justify mercy killing as completely free from bad reaction. However, to kill out of necessity and without any anger or hatred has less bad reaction than to kill out of intense anger or jealousy. On the other hand, a being (man or animal) may suffer owing to his bad kamma. If By mercy killing, we prevent the working out of one’s bad kamma,the debt will have to be paid in another existence. As Buddhists, all that we can do is to help to reduce the pain of suffering in others. Killing for Self Protection The Buddha has advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a person’s life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune. However, man loves his life so much that he is not prepared to surrender himself to others; in actual practice, most people would struggle for self-protection. It is natural and every living being struggles and kills others for self-protection but kammic effect depends on their mental attitude. During the struggle to protect himself, if he happens to kill his opponent although he has no intention to kill, then he is not responsible for that action. On the other hand, if he kills another person under any circumstances with the intention to kill, then he is not free from the kammic reaction; he has to face the consequences. We must remember that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it ‘murder’. When we punish man for murdering, we call it ‘capital punishment’. If our own soldiers are killed by an ‘enemy’ we call it ‘slaughter’. However, if we approve a killing, we call it ‘war’. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we can understand that killing is killing.

In recent years many scientists and some religionists have used the expressions like ‘humane killing’, ‘mercy killing’, ‘gentle killing’ and ‘painless killing’ to justify the ending of a life. They argue that if the victim feels no pain, if the knife is sharp, killing is justified. Buddhism can never accept these arguments because it is not how the killing occurs that is important, but the fact that a life of one being is terminated by another. No one has any right to do that
for whatever reason.

Buddhism is a terrible reason to justify any action, not just whether to kill. This is evident in that your understanding of the precepts which you have accepted on faith have clouded your judgment to a degree that you can’t see a moral differences between the many situations in which a person might end the life of another being. Your only effective criticism against mercy killing was that doing so may prevent an eternal soul from paying its karmic debt. I think in doing so you have highlighted Dr. Harris’ point that even laudable moral traditions like Buddhism put their adherents at risk of immoral and stupid behavior by virtue of the fact that they have adopted their beliefs on faith, rather than reason.

What if souls aren’t eternally recycled, sir? How moral is your position then?

The world today is in a state of turmoil; valuable ethics are being upturned. The forces of materialistic skepticism have turned their dissecting blades on the traditional concepts of what are considered humane qualities. Yet, any person who has a concern for culture and civilization will concern himself with practical, ethical issues. For ethics has to do with human conduct. It is concerned with our relationship with ourselves and with our fellow-men.

The need for ethics arises from the fact that man is not perfect by nature; he has to train himself to be good. Thus morality becomes the most important aspect of living. Buddhist ethics are not arbitrary standards invented by man for his own utilitarian purpose. Nor are they arbitrarily imposed from without. Man-made laws and social customs do not form the basis of Buddhist ethics. For example, the styles of dress that are suitable for one climate, period or civilization may be considered indecent in another; but this is entirely a matter of social custom and does not in any way involve ethical considerations. Yet the artificialities of social conventions are continually confused with ethical principles that are valid and unchanging. Buddhist ethics finds its foundation not on the changing social customs but rather on the unchanging laws of nature. Buddhist ethical values are intrinsically a part of nature, and the unchanging law of cause and effect (kamma). The simple fact that Buddhist ethics are rooted in natural law makes its principles both useful and acceptable to the modern world. The fact that the Buddhist ethical code was formulated over 2,500 years ago does not detract from its timeless character. Morality in Buddhism is essentially practical in that it is only a means leading to the final goal of ultimate happiness. On the Buddhist path to Emancipation, each individual is considered responsible for his own fortunes and misfortunes. Each individual is expected to work his own deliverance by his understanding and effort. Buddhist salvation is the result of one’s own moral development and can neither be imposed nor granted to one by some external agent. The Buddha’s mission was to enlighten men as to the nature of existence and to advise them how best to act for their own happiness and for the benefit of others. Consequently, Buddhist ethics are not founded on any commandments which men are compelled to follow. The Buddha advised men on the conditions which were most wholesome and conducive to long term benefit for self and others. Rather than addressing sinners with such words as ‘shameful’, ‘wicked’, ‘wretched’, ‘unworthy’, and ‘blasphemous’ He would merely say, ‘You are unwise in acting in such a way since this will bring sorrow upon yourselves and others.’ The theory of Buddhist ethics finds its practical expression in the various precepts. These precepts or disciplines are nothing but general guides to show the direction in which the Buddhist ought to turn to on his way to final salvation. Although many of these precepts are expressed in a negative form, we must not think that Buddhist morality, consists of abstaining from evil without the complement of doing good.

The morality found in all the precepts can be summarized in three simple principles?‘To avoid evil; to do good, to purify the mind.’ This is the advice given by all the Buddhas.—(Dhammapada, 183) In Buddhism, the distinction between what is good and what is bad is very simple: all actions that have their roots in greed, hatred, and delusion that spring from selfishness foster the harmful delusion of selfhood. These action are demeritorious or unskillful or bad. They are called Akusala Kamma. All those actions which are rooted in the virtues of generosity, love and wisdom, are meritorious— Kusala Kamma. The criteria of good and bad apply whether the actions are of thought, word or deed. Buddhist ethics are based on intention or volition

‘Kamma is volition,’ says the Buddha. Action themselves are considered as neither good nor bad but ‘only the intention and thought makes them so.’ Yet Buddhist ethics does not maintain that a person may commit what are conventionally regarded as ‘sins’ provided that he does so with the best of intentions. Had this been its position, Buddhism would have confined itself to questions of psychology and left the uninteresting task of drawing up lists of ethical rules and framing codes of conducts to less emancipated teachings. The connection between thoughts and deeds, between mental and material action is an extension of thought. It is not possible to commit murder with a good heart because taking of life is simply the outward expression of a state of mind dominated by hate or greed. Deeds are condensations of thoughts just as rain is a condensation of vapor. Deeds proclaim from the rooftops of action only what has already been committed in the silent and secret chambers of the heart. A person who commits an immoral act thereby declares that he is not free from unwholesome states of mind. Also, a person who has a purified and radiant mind, who has a mind empty of all defiled thoughts and feelings, is incapable of committing immoral actions. Buddhist ethics also recognizes the objectivity of moral value. In other words, the kammic consequences of actions occur in accordance with natural kammic law, regardless of the attitude of the individual or regardless of social attitudes toward the act. For example, drunkenness has kammic consequences; it is evil since it promotes one’s own unhappiness as well as the unhappiness of others. The kammic effects of drunkenness exist despite what the drunkard or his society may think about the habit of drinking. The prevailing opinions and attitudes do not in the least detract from the fact that drunkenness is objectively evil. The consequences—psychological, social, and kammic—make actions moral or immoral, regardless of the mental attitudes of those judging the act. Thus while ethical relativism is recognized, it is not considered as undermining the objectivity of values.

By observing precepts, not only do you cultivate your moral strength, but you also perform the highest service to your fellow beings.

Every country or society has its code of what are considered to be moral actions within its social context. These codes are often linked to the society’s interest and its code of law. An action is considered right so long as it does not break the law and transgress public or individual sensitivities. These man-made codes are flexible and amended from time to time to suit changing circumstances. Important as they are to society, these man-made standards cannot serve as a reliable guide to some principles of morality which can be applied universally.

By contrast, Buddhist morality is not the invention of human minds. Neither is it based on tribal ethics which are gradually being replaced by humanistic codes. It is based on the universal law of cause and effect (kamma), and considers a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ action in terms of the manner it affects oneself and others. An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being.

Buddhist morality addresses a very common, yet crucial question: How can we judge if an action is good or bad? The answer, according to Buddhism, is a simple one. The quality of an action hinges on the intention or motivation (cetana)from which it originates. If a person performs an action out of greed, hatred, and delusion, his action is considered to be unwholesome. On the other hand, if he performs and action out of love, charity, and wisdom, his action is a wholesome one. Greed, Hatred and Delusion are known as the ‘Three Evil Root’, while love, charity and wisdom as the ‘Three Good Roots’. The word ‘root’ refers to the intention from which that action originates. Therefore, no matter how a person tries to disguise the nature of his action, the truth can be found by examining his thoughts which gave rise to that action. And the mind is the source of all our speech and action. In Buddhism, a person’s first duty is to cleanse himself of the mental defilements of greed, hatred and ignorance. The reason for doing this is not because of fear or desire to please some divine beings. If this is so, a person is still lacking in wisdom. He is only acting out of fear like the little child who is afraid of being punished for being naughty. A Buddhist should act out of understanding and wisdom. He performs wholesome deeds because he realizes that by so doing he develops his moral strength which provides the foundation for spiritual growth, leading to Liberation. In addition, he realizes that his happiness and suffering are self-created through the operation of the Law of Kamma. To minimize the occurrence of troubles and problems in his life, he makes the effort to refrain from doing evil. He performs good actions because he know that these will bring him peace and happiness. Since everyone seeks happiness in life, and since it is possible for him to provide the condition for happiness, then there is every reason for him to do good and avoid evil. Furthermore, the uprooting of these mental defilements, the source of all anti-social acts, will bring great benefits to others in society. Five Precepts Lay Buddhist morality is embodies in the Five Precepts, which may be considered at two levels. First, it enables men to live together in civilized communities with mutual trust and respect. Second, it is the starting point for the spiritual journey towards Liberation. Unlike commandments, which are supposedly divine commands imposed on men, precepts are accepted voluntarily by the person himself, especially when he realizes the usefulness of adopting some training rules for disciplining his body, speech and mind. Understanding, rather than fear of punishment, is the reason for following the precepts. A good Buddhist should remind himself to follow the Five Precepts daily. They are as follows:

It is rather difficult for us to understand how the world came into existence without a first cause. But it is very much more difficult to understand how that first cause came into existence at the beginning.

According to the Buddha, it is inconceivable to find a first cause for life or anything else. For in common experience, the cause becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. In the circle of cause and effect, a first cause is incomprehensible. With regard to the origin of life, the Buddha declares, ‘Without cognizable end is this recurrent wandering in Samsara(cycle of birth and death). Beings are obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving. A first beginning of these beings is not to be perceived. (Anamatagga Samyutta in Samyutta Nikaya). This life-steam flows on ad infinitum, as long as it is fed by the muddy waters of ignorance and craving. When these two are cut off, only then does the life-steam cease to flow, only then does rebirth come to an end.

It is difficult to conceive an end of space. It is difficult to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time. But it is more difficult for us to understand how this world came into existence with a first cause. And it is more difficult to understand how that first cause came into existence at the beginning. For if the first cause can exist though uncreated, there is no reason why the other phenomena of the universe must not exist without having also been created. As to the question how all beings came into existence without a first cause, the Buddhist’s reply is that there is no answer because the question itself is merely a product of man’s limited comprehension. If we can understand the nature of time and relativity, we must see that there could not have been any beginning. It can only be pointed out that all the usual answers to the question are fundamentally defective. If it is assumed that for a thing to exist, it must have had a creator who existed before it, it follows logically that the creator himself must have had a creator, and so on back to infinity. On the other hand, if the creator could exist without a prior cause in the form of another creator, the whole argument falls to the ground. The theory of a creator does not solve any problems, it only complicates the existing ones. Thus Buddhism does not pay much attention to theories and beliefs about the origin of the world. Whether the world was created by a god or it came into existence by itself makes little difference to Buddhist. Whether the world is finite or infinite also makes little difference to Buddhists. Instead of following this line of theoretical speculations, the Buddha advises people to work hard to find their own salvation. Scientists have discovered many causes which are responsible for the existence of life, plants, planets, elements and other energies. But it is impossible for anyone to find out any particular first cause for their existence. If they go on searching for the first cause of any existing life or thing, they point certain causes as the main cause but that never becomes the first cause. In the process of searching for the first cause one after the other, they will come back to the place where they were. This is because, cause becomes the effect and the next moment that effect becomes the cause to produce another effect. That is what the Buddha say, ‘It is incomprehensible and the universe is beginningless.’ == face=“Times New Roman” Is there an Eternal Soul?

According to Buddhism mercy killing cannot be justified. Mercy and killing can never go together. Some people kill their pets on the grounds that they do not like to see the pets suffer. However, if mercy killing is the correct method to be practised on pets and other animals, then why are people so reluctant to do the same to their beloved ones? When some people see their dogs or cats suffer from some skin disease, they arrange to kill those poor animals. They call this action, mercy killing. Actually it is not that they have mercy towards those animals, but they kill them for their own precaution and to get rid of an awful sight. And even if they do have real mercy towards a suffering animal, they still have no right to take away its life. No matter how sincere one may be, mercy killing, is not the correct approach. The consequences of this killing, however, are different from killing with hatred towards the animal. Buddhists have no grounds to say that any kind of killing is justified. Some people try to justify mercy killing with the misconception that if the motive or reason is good, then the act itself is good. They then claim that by killing their pet, they have the intention to relieve the unhappy animal from its suffering and so the action is good. No doubt their original intention or motive is good. But the evil act of killing which occurs through a later thought, will certainly bring about unwholesome results.

Keeping away from mercy killing can become a nuisance to many. Nevertheless, the Buddhist religion cannot justify mercy killing as completely free from bad reaction. However, to kill out of necessity and without any anger or hatred has less bad reaction than to kill out of intense anger or jealousy. On the other hand, a being (man or animal) may suffer owing to his bad kamma. If By mercy killing, we prevent the working out of one’s bad kamma,the debt will have to be paid in another existence. As Buddhists, all that we can do is to help to reduce the pain of suffering in others. Killing for Self Protection The Buddha has advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a person’s life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune. However, man loves his life so much that he is not prepared to surrender himself to others; in actual practice, most people would struggle for self-protection. It is natural and every living being struggles and kills others for self-protection but kammic effect depends on their mental attitude. During the struggle to protect himself, if he happens to kill his opponent although he has no intention to kill, then he is not responsible for that action. On the other hand, if he kills another person under any circumstances with the intention to kill, then he is not free from the kammic reaction; he has to face the consequences. We must remember that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it ‘murder’. When we punish man for murdering, we call it ‘capital punishment’. If our own soldiers are killed by an ‘enemy’ we call it ‘slaughter’. However, if we approve a killing, we call it ‘war’. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we can understand that killing is killing.

In recent years many scientists and some religionists have used the expressions like ‘humane killing’, ‘mercy killing’, ‘gentle killing’ and ‘painless killing’ to justify the ending of a life. They argue that if the victim feels no pain, if the knife is sharp, killing is justified. Buddhism can never accept these arguments because it is not how the killing occurs that is important, but the fact that a life of one being is terminated by another. No one has any right to do that
for whatever reason.

Lefroy’s Worldview
The Internet God
Buddhism is Bullshit – Part IV 19/03/2011
Most people I know think I’m bit of a jerk. My ex-girlfriend thinks I’m a big asshole. Maybe that’s why I chose a Poya Day to issue the fourth part of this article series which assaults Buddhism.

In Buddhism, the word “world (lokaya)” means a lot of things. In one sense, it is just planet earth, upon which all of us live and die. In another sense, it is the whole of this universe and other universes (if there are any). In yet another sense, world is something that exist within your non-existing mind; the world is within you.

In any case, even if it is not ultimately true, physical world exists since even Buddha had to pee. According to Buddhism, planet earth isn’t the only world with life. There are many many others. A Buddhist, after reading my previous post, might say that I prove nothing because simply because earth is not old enough for Buddhism, that doesn’t mean the “world” is not old enough for Buddhism.

Here’s the problem with this theory. Buddhism, according to Buddha, is a religion for humans. “Nirvana” is something only humans can attain. If you are a leopard, you somehow have to earn good Karma, become human, and then attain Nirvana. If you are a devil, you have to earn good Karma, become human, and then attain Nirvana. If you are a god living in heaven, you have to come down and become human before you could attain Nirvana. Buddhism is for humans.

There is no way that humans could exist anywhere other than on planet earth unless they were created by a creator (god). Homo sapiens sapiens is a creation of evolution. We are here because our ancestors adapted to changing environments and situations on planet earth. Our genetic code is the history of all the shit they had to go through. If we evolve into another species (and we most certainly will if we do not go extinct), their genetic code will include stories about all the shit we had to go through. Even if there are other planets with complex life forms, even if natural selection is present in those planets with complex life forms, even if there is carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, even if there is water, there is no way Homo sapiens sapiens could be created in those planets.

Then what about those 23 other Buddhas? I believe Gautama Buddha is the 24th Buddha. We know for a fact that those 23 other Buddhas did not live on planet earth. Did they live on other planets? Were they green aliens? No they weren’t. They were humans. Just like Gautama Buddha, they attained Nirvana under trees (carbon based living things) that can only be present on planet earth. Buddhism is for humans, not for green or grey or black aliens. If you think those aliens would give a shit about Buddhism, you probably think that they give a shit about Das Kapital as well since they must have similar minds to ours.

There’s this idea in Buddhism that one day, everything will be destroyed (the end of the world), and then everything will be created again. I remember correctly, according to Buddhism, this world will be destroyed after Maithree Buddha’s Buddhism go extinct, then all of it will be re-created. Everything will start from the beginning. There will be more Buddhas. This is bullshit because for that to happen, everything that happened on planet earth needs to happen somewhere else which is exactly like planet earth. There’s no way that everything that happened on planet earth could happen again since you know what? Some of the elephants and tigers and “Vatu Kurullas” who lived on planet earth would have already attained Nirvana and would have nothing to do with this whole re-creation thing.

Some people kill their pets on the grounds that they do not like to see the pets suffer. However, if mercy killing is the correct method to be practised on pets and other animals, then why are people so reluctant to do the same to their beloved ones?

I don’t know. I’d like to see that changed.

When some people see their dogs or cats suffer from some skin disease, they arrange to kill those poor animals. They call this action, mercy killing. Actually it is not that they have mercy towards those animals, but they kill them for their own precaution and to get rid of an awful sight.

How the hell would you know?

And even if they do have real mercy towards a suffering animal, they still have no right to take away its life.

I reserve the right to care for my pet, from the moment it’s my pet, until it is dead.

No matter how sincere one may be, mercy killing, is not the correct approach.

Says who?

The consequences of this killing, however, are different from killing with hatred towards the animal.

The consequences result in a dead animal. Looks the same to me.

Buddhists have no grounds to say that any kind of killing is justified. Some people try to justify mercy killing with the misconception that if the motive or reason is good, then the act itself is good. They then claim that by killing their pet, they have the intention to relieve the unhappy animal from its suffering and so the action is good. No doubt their original intention or motive is good. But the evil act of killing which occurs through a later thought, will certainly bring about unwholesome results.

Such as?

Keeping away from mercy killing can become a nuisance to many. Nevertheless, the Buddhist religion cannot justify mercy killing as completely free from bad reaction.

Why not?

However, to kill out of necessity and without any anger or hatred has less bad reaction than to kill out of intense anger or jealousy. On the other hand, a being (man or animal) may suffer owing to his bad kamma. If By mercy killing, we prevent the working out of one’s bad kamma,the debt will have to be paid in another existence. As Buddhists, all that we can do is to help to reduce the pain of suffering in others. Killing for Self Protection The Buddha has advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a person’s life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune. However, man loves his life so much that he is not prepared to surrender himself to others; in actual practice, most people would struggle for self-protection. It is natural and every living being struggles and kills others for self-protection but kammic effect depends on their mental attitude. During the struggle to protect himself, if he happens to kill his opponent although he has no intention to kill, then he is not responsible for that action. On the other hand, if he kills another person under any circumstances with the intention to kill, then he is not free from the kammic reaction; he has to face the consequences. We must remember that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it ‘murder’. When we punish man for murdering, we call it ‘capital punishment’. If our own soldiers are killed by an ‘enemy’ we call it ‘slaughter’. However, if we approve a killing, we call it ‘war’. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we can understand that killing is killing.

Don’t care. My cat will just have to work out it’s imaginary kamma in the next life, as this one is over, suffering and all.

In recent years many scientists and some religionists have used the expressions like ‘humane killing’, ‘mercy killing’, ‘gentle killing’ and ‘painless killing’ to justify the ending of a life. They argue that if the victim feels no pain, if the knife is sharp, killing is justified. Buddhism can never accept these arguments because it is not how the killing occurs that is important, but the fact that a life of one being is terminated by another. No one has any right to do that
for whatever reason.

I do. I don’t let BS trump compassion. Deal with it.
Only an asshole would stand by and watch as a creature in his charge suffers. Thanks for showing us the true nature of Buddhism. And you.

I define mercy killing as the act of outside party deciding that another life should be terminated on the grounds of arguing its merciful.
If one is discuss mercy killing as ok then one needs to discuss when the suffering is enough to kill. People kill their pets because they cant be bothered giving them all the required medicine. The non-human animal suffered but it could be rectified if proper medicine was given on daily basis.
The non-human animal becomes blind is that enough to be terminated? Deaf? Paralised?
Then the issue is with deciding when mercy killing can be applied to humans. Where do we draw the line?

I define mercy killing as the act of outside party deciding that another life should be terminated on the grounds of arguing its merciful.

Partially. However, one may be quite capable of making their wishes known to the third party, taking the decision out of the equasion.

If one is discuss mercy killing as ok then one needs to discuss when the suffering is enough to kill.

Justification must be provided before any medical treatment be performed. I see no reason to abandon that premise now.

People kill their pets because they cant be bothered giving them all the required medicine. The non-human animal suffered but it could be rectified if proper medicine was given on daily basis.

As a blanket statement, this is quite false.

The non-human animal becomes blind is that enough to be terminated? Deaf? Paralised?
Then the issue is with deciding when mercy killing can be applied to humans. Where do we draw the line?

The Terri Shiavo (sp?) case is a good point to begin. Would anyone suggest that starvation is a more compassionate approach then a lethal injection?

DNR orders are routinely provided for patients and residents of nursing homes now. Medical intervention that does nothing more than prolonge suffering is not, IMO, the most ideal way to deal with the terminally ill. Occasionally listening to them, as if their opinion mattered, might prove to be more than just a novel idea.

Signature

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta